Texas Midland Railway Co. v. Geraldon

Supreme Court of Texas · Torts

Tortspremises liabilitycarrier dutiesnegligenceordinary careejection from premiseswaiting roomrailroad depot

Facts

Geraldon, his wife, and child went to the railroad's depot at Enloe intending to take a train to Commerce, but after missing the afternoon train they remained in the waiting room for the next morning's train without objection from the agent. Around 10 p.m., while it was raining, the agent ordered them out so he could close the building; Geraldon told him his wife was in no condition to go out into the rain, but the agent insisted and summoned the town marshal to put them out. The party then left in the rain and walked about 150 to 300 yards to a lodging house, during which Mrs. Geraldon was soaked; because she was menstruating, the exposure allegedly caused illness and suffering. The next morning, after buying tickets, Geraldon was identified by the agent to an officer as the man with a gun and was searched, but no gun was found.

Issue

Whether a railroad that has the right to close its depot waiting room is liable when its agent forces intended passengers to leave during a rainstorm despite notice that the wife's condition made such exposure dangerous to her health. Also, whether the trial court properly refused to take the case from the jury.

Rule

Persons who enter a railroad waiting room for the purpose of taking passage are not trespassers and may remain until the next train arrives, subject to the railroad's right to close the building under reasonable rules. But in enforcing that right, the railroad's agent must use ordinary care not to place an occupant in a position that would probably endanger health or life; if the agent knows or is sufficiently informed that expulsion into existing weather conditions would likely cause such harm, ejecting the person is unlawful.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Flores arrived at a rail depot in Tulsa intending to board the first eastbound train the next morning after missing the last evening departure. She sat in the station waiting room that the railroad maintained for passengers, and the station manager saw her there for hours without objection before ordering her out at midnight.

If Nina sues after being expelled, which argument most strongly defeats the railroad's claim that she was a trespasser as a matter of law?

Explanation. The majority treated persons who enter a railroad waiting room for the purpose of taking passage as not trespassers, even if they are waiting for the next train after missing an earlier one. Their right to remain is qualified by the railroad's reasonable rules, but their initial status is not that of trespassers. The other choices either add requirements the opinion did not impose or deny the railroad's retained right to close under reasonable rules. (Derived from Texas Midland Railway Co. v. Geraldon (n.d.).)